Tropic of Cancer, Henry Miller; what i'm currently reading; also, i have 'walden' and some simpsons book in my bathroom that i'm slowly getting through.currently looking for a cheap copy of 'dude, where's my country', but that probably won't be possible for some time....[/img]

Tropic of Cancer, Henry Miller; what i'm currently reading; also, i have 'walden' and some simpsons book in my bathroom that i'm slowly getting through.currently looking for a cheap copy of 'dude, where's my country', but that probably won't be possible for some time....[/img]

what did you think of Tropic of Cancer? I hated it, couldn't finish it.

oh, i meant capricorn. i have read cancer though. uh, i thought it was good. of course, the way he refered to women and treated them wasn't as amusing as some people think. i thought the book was interesting. capricorn is a little more well thought out. it's still has sexual content, but it doesn't seem to be as harsh. And he does seem to have something he's trying to say in this one.I heard he later apologized, to some extent, for the way he portrayed women in cancer, so I don't dislike so much anymore for that. was that what you didn't like about the book? or did you just find it to be a big mess, in which case, i could understand that too.

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

oh, i meant capricorn. i have read cancer though. uh, i thought it was good. of course, the way he refered to women and treated them wasn't as amusing as some people think. i thought the book was interesting. capricorn is a little more well thought out. it's still has sexual content, but it doesn't seem to be as harsh. And he does seem to have something he's trying to say in this one.I heard he later apologized, to some extent, for the way he portrayed women in cancer, so I don't dislike so much anymore for that. was that what you didn't like about the book? or did you just find it to be a big mess, in which case, i could understand that too.

I don't think he had anything special against women. He hated and despised everything, in every sentence he wrote. For that I find him snobbish. Like everything is wrong and ugly, except him. I mean, where's the meticulous description of his syphilitic dick? I appologize for my choice of words. This one seemed only appropriate.I think he hated the whole world. Being swifty with words, he just gave as piece of his mind.

more than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. one path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. the other, to total extinction. let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.woody allen (side effects - 1980)

I was introduced to her work through Stanley Kubrick's references, and I love it. There's a retrospective going around to museums... I believe NY, LA, Minneapolis and Chicago, maybe San Francisco.

""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

oh, i meant capricorn. i have read cancer though. uh, i thought it was good. of course, the way he refered to women and treated them wasn't as amusing as some people think. i thought the book was interesting. capricorn is a little more well thought out. it's still has sexual content, but it doesn't seem to be as harsh. And he does seem to have something he's trying to say in this one.I heard he later apologized, to some extent, for the way he portrayed women in cancer, so I don't dislike so much anymore for that. was that what you didn't like about the book? or did you just find it to be a big mess, in which case, i could understand that too.

I don't think he had anything special against women. He hated and despised everything, in every sentence he wrote. For that I find him snobbish. Like everything is wrong and ugly, except him. I mean, where's the meticulous description of his syphilitic dick? I appologize for my choice of words. This one seemed only appropriate.I think he hated the whole world. Being swifty with words, he just gave as piece of his mind.

I do agree with you. But it is that aggrevation and discontent that made him interesting, not to mention what he wrote about was more about liberating us from saying and writing what we thought and what we saw. There is some goodness in his angry and narcissistic tone. Holden Caufield hated everything as well, but then, he was a character and Miller is writing about himself. I like him in his later years, when he was more gentle and thoughtful. Try "Stand Still Like The Hummingbird" if you can find it. It's a collection of short stories.